Hearsay
Farrant v. Westaway
Identification is a permissible non-hearsay purpose for a statement. Where a statement is not being used for the truth of the matter asserted but is instead being used to identify a particular object, the statement is being used for identification. For example, if a license plate is being used to identify a particular car, the statement on the license plate is admissible as non-hearsay.
Omnidirectional Solutions v. Little Bird Word LLC
Response to Tarot Readers. So long as the expert can sufficiently explain their expertise, training, and method for review, Tarot Readers Assoc. shall not be used by trial courts to prohibit otherwise credible and admissible opinions simply because there is not a known error rate or prior peer review of the expert’s analysis.
Greller v. Harish (not authentication)
MRE above FRE
Leander v. Minzer
A defendant “fails to act reasonably” for the purposes of negligence liability if they have departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. The reasonableness test is an objective test—the specific abilities or traits of the defendant are irrelevant. Thus, even a person with low intelligence or who is chronically careless is held to the same standard as a more careful person or a person of higher intelligence.
Character also applies to corporations
Coburn Camera Crew v. Ellicott City
America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles
It is hearsay, even if the witness testifying made the statement
703 does not allow experts to be conduits to hearsay
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ
Filteau v. Wanek
Bar for assessing the admissibility of a statement (preponderance of the evidence)
Kim v. French
In deciding whether a defendant acted reasonably, the jury may take into consideration whether, prior to the plaintiff’s injury, the defendant followed standards that are prevailing in the industry or complied with customs prevailing in the community. Although such industry standards and community customs are relevant, they are not necessarily dispositive.
Causation has two components: direct cause and proximate cause
Yanka v. Edwards Industries
Dolly v. Ringo
Unlike most other evidentiary rules, MRE 801(d)(2) may be invoked in only one direction. Under that rule, the plaintiff may offer statements by the defendant, and the defendant may offer statements by the plaintiff. But MRE 801(d)(2) does not permit the plaintiff to offer statements by the plaintiff or the defendant to offer statements by the defendant, even if the opposing party has already elicited out-of-court statements by the party during a preceding examination, subject to MRE 106.
Rule against Trial by Ambush
Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations
Zomerfeld v. Noto
Assessment of the Relevance of Industry Standards/foreseeability
Iacomini v. Chapman
Shakur v. Wallace
It is up to the fact finder to determine the credibility of each witness’s testimony. A fact finder, whether jury or judge, may choose to credit all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony and may credit one part of a witness’s testimony without crediting others. At all times, the fact finder may consider the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case. However, it is not appropriate for a testifying witness to determine the credibility or otherwise opine on the credibility of another witness. Such a determination or opinion by a testifying witness is not relevant under the MRE.
Statements that are definitionally not hearsay
State v. B.F. De la Porta
Also accepted: Chambers v. By the Book Publishing, Ltd.
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow
Judges should consider whether the theory or technique has been or can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has a known error rate, or whether it has gained widespread acceptance within the field.
Ginger v. Heisman
Emails or text messages are properly authenticated when the proponent has produced evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would allow a reasonable jury to determine the author of the message. The fact that an email, text message, or other electronic communication is listed as coming from an address or number that is either known or purports to belong to a particular person is sufficient to lay the foundation that the communication was sent by the person in order to determine its admissibility, at least absent particularized reasons to believe that the communication may have been sent by someone else.
Lays out where a duty of care can arrise
Savage v. Jones
The defendant should have foreseen the general type of risk that caused the harm
Haug v. Kolb
MRE 801(d)(2)(D) for Employee Statements
Kaplan v. Sikora
Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri, Inc.
Response to Kane Software. Experts are not required to explain all underlying scientific facts
Which MCL are needed to enter exhibits 5a-5e and/or 12a-12c?
Jung v. Lopez
Silberman v. Satterfield
Midlands Reliability Code = MG&E owed a duty of care
Lays out the required features of intervening acts for a defense to take on an affirmative defense
Purdue v. Waldie